memory_scope_disable

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the session-scoped effect, which tools are affected (memory_search and memory_list), and the reset behavior on server restart. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives the agent a clear mental model, though it doesn't mention idempotency or error cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences: what it does, the effect, and the persistence. The most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, effect on subsequent operations (memory_search/memory_list), the use case, and the reset boundary. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need to be described. It is complete for a simple state-changing operation with one parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only a string property with no description, and the description doesn't explicitly define the format or valid values for 'scope'. However, it does clarify the semantic role ('memories tagged with this scope'), which lets the agent infer that scope is a label. For a single parameter this is adequate but not deeply explanatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Disable') and names the resource ('a scope') with explicit scoping ('for the rest of this session'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, especially memory_scope_enable, by stating the opposite action. The effect on other tools (memory_search, memory_list) is precisely described.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a concrete usage trigger ('when the user says “this is unrelated to project X”') and clarifies session-only behavior with reset on restart. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly name memory_scope_enable as the alternative, but the contrast is strongly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.